Are you learning New Testament Greek with Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek? Here's where you can meet other learners using this textbook. Use this board to ask questions and post your work for feedback. Use this forum too to discuss all things Koine, LXX & New Testament Greek including grammar, syntax, textbook talk and more.

I will just comment that I read this passage through the Hebrew language as בצורה and that I think it makes much better sense. It seems to me that the Greek phrase ἐν μορφῇ is translational Greek (as well as λαβεῖν μορφήν) from a Semitic way of thinking - whether we assert that the author was thinking in Hebrew or Aramaic as a backdrop for this expression.

I want to look into how the Septuagint uses μορφή to get another perspective of the term.

Do you have opinions that weigh in on this question?

Last edited by jaihare on Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I can't see how these can be technically epexegetical genitives since "assuming a form, that is, a servant" makes no more sense in Greek than it does in English.

On a side note, Stephen Hughes recently suggested on B-Greek a new (new, at least, to me) way to understand genitives. You pretend that the genitive case does not exist, and you replace the genitive phrase with a relative clause in which you use a verb that is implicit in the relationship between the two nouns. Thus

ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ

can be paraphrased as

ἐν μορφῇ ἣ ὁμοιάζει τῷ θεῷ

or

ἐν μορφῇ ἣν ὁ θεὸς πάρειχε.

In my opinion, this is a better approach than trying to categorize genitives with English meta-language terms. A true epexegetical genitive, i.e. Rom 4:11

I can't see how these can be technically epexegetical genitives since "assuming a form, that is, a servant" makes no more sense in Greek than it does in English.

On a side note, Stephen Hughes recently suggested on B-Greek a new (new, at least, to me) way to understand genitives. You pretend that the genitive case does not exist, and you replace the genitive phrase with a relative clause in which you use a verb that is implicit in the relationship between the two nouns. Thus

ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ

can be paraphrased as

ἐν μορφῇ ἣ ὁμοιάζει τῷ θεῷ

or

ἐν μορφῇ ἣν ὁ θεὸς πάρειχε.

In my opinion, this is a better approach than trying to categorize genitives with English meta-language terms. A true epexegetical genitive, i.e. Rom 4:11

καὶ σημεῖον ἔλαβεν περιτομῆς

would be paraphrased

καὶ ἔλαβεν σημεῖον ὅ ἐστιν ἡ περιτομή.

Yes, Mark. I'm aware that we've had this discussion in the past. For some reason, though, there is a poster on another forum who is not content to have a discussion once. The discussion is never over until you agree with him, and he uses questions like this (which lack all importance for the majority of us) as a battering stick to whack you over the head over and over again.

I realize the pitfalls of trying to label each instance of the oblique cases by function and that their uses are often more nuanced than this, but at the same time I feel compelled to defend my reading of this text.

What form was the subject (Jesus) in? The form of God. God was the form in which he existed. What form did he take? The form of a servant. It seems reasonable to me to read it as an epexegetical genitive. He existed in one form - and he took a different form. The first form was "God," and the second was "servant." It's not talking about appearance or shape. It's talking about the form of existence.

jaihare wrote: It seems reasonable to me to read it as an epexegetical genitive. He existed in one form - and he took a different form. The first form was "God," and the second was "servant." It's not talking about appearance or shape. It's talking about the form of existence.

It sounds like you are saying that ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων is a paraphrastic (and semitic?) way of saying ὑπάρχων θεός and that μορφὴν δούλου λαβών is another way of saying γενόμενος δοῦλος. Now, I don't really disagree with you, as I believe Paul would say that Jesus was a god, and that he became a slave. But doesn't he use μορφή plus the genitive to qualify both statements? Jesus was divine as far as form goes (I do think this means something much closer to "appearance" than "existence",) and while he became a human being and a slave in form, he retained his inner divinity. Paul's Christology, that is, is somewhat lower than Orthodoxy would want it to be, and he flirts a bit here with Docetism.

...there is a poster on another forum who is not content to have a discussion once. The discussion is never over until you agree with him, and he uses questions like this (which lack all importance for the majority of us) as a battering stick to whack you over the head over and over again.

If his point is that one cannot use an appeal to the epexegetical genitive in this passage to establish the doctrine of the trinity, I agree with him. What is his basic point?

jaihare wrote: It seems reasonable to me to read it as an epexegetical genitive. He existed in one form - and he took a different form. The first form was "God," and the second was "servant." It's not talking about appearance or shape. It's talking about the form of existence.

It sounds like you are saying that ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων is a paraphrastic (and semitic?) way of saying ὑπάρχων θεός and that μορφὴν δούλου λαβών is another way of saying γενόμενος δοῦλος. Now, I don't really disagree with you, as I believe Paul would say that Jesus was a god, and that he became a slave. But doesn't he use μορφή plus the genitive to qualify both statements? Jesus was divine as far as form goes (I do think this means something much closer to "appearance" than "existence",) and while he became a human being and a slave in form, he retained his inner divinity. Paul's Christology, that is, is somewhat lower than Orthodoxy would want it to be, and he flirts a bit here with Docetism.

...there is a poster on another forum who is not content to have a discussion once. The discussion is never over until you agree with him, and he uses questions like this (which lack all importance for the majority of us) as a battering stick to whack you over the head over and over again.

If his point is that one cannot use an appeal to the epexegetical genitive in this passage to establish the doctrine of the trinity, I agree with him. What is his basic point?

Honestly? He's using my opinion of this verse to say that I don't know Greek and cannot understand the New Testament. LOL

Oh, and he does it all anonymously. He hides behind a moniker. It's really silly. One of the Internet know-it-all's that we all know about.

Normally, when we say that something appeared "in the form of" something else, it means that it isn't really the thing itself. For example, we could say that Zeus is often portrayed as taking the form of an eagle and coming to make appearances before humans. Similarly, we hear that he sometimes took the form of an old decrepit man.

Should we understand Jesus as existing in the form of a god (that is, "like" a god, but not really a god) and then taking the form of a servant (being "like" a servant but not really a servant)? Or, has the word "form" here lost its literal force? If we read it as an epexegetical genitive, then we understand this idiomatically as saying "existing as God" and "becoming a servant." The word μορφή doesn't really bear its normal meaning in this way.

By the way, my reference to Hebrew was to the use of צורה ("form") in a way that describes how something is done and turns an adjective into an adverbial expression.

For example, the adjective מהיר [mahir] means "quick," and בצורה מהירה [be-tsurah mehirah] means "quickly." Although the word צורה [tsurah] literally refers to appearance or form, it loses its concrete meaning in such expressions.

It seems to me reasonable to see μορφή doing the same thing - that it has lost its regular concrete meaning in this passage. I would assign it to epexegetical in that θεός is the form in his pre-human existence and δοῦλος (used here as both a descriptive term for "human" and also as a reference to the "Suffering Servant" song of Isaiah) is the form he took at incarnation.

We could read it as "existing in one form (that is, God)... taking another form (that is, a servant)." I cannot but understand the passage this way.

If you understand it otherwise, how would you explain it? How do you understand ἐν μορφῇ and λαβεῖν μορφήν here?

jaihare wrote:If you understand it otherwise, how would you explain it? How do you understand ἐν μορφῇ and λαβεῖν μορφήν here?

ὃς ὢν ὁμοῖος θεῷ...ἐγένετο ὁμοῖος δούλῳ.

I am writing in Ancient Greek not because I know Greek well, but because I hope that it will improve my fluency in reading. I got the idea for this from Adrianus over on the Latin forum here at Textkit.

The problem is with your assertion that Θεοῦ and δούλου in Phil. 2:6-8 are epexegetical genitives . This simply cannot [reasonably speaking] be the case. Perhaps you should re-visit the definition of epexegetical genitive.

Whether μορφῇ in Phil. 2:6-8 means "the nature" (as in ontology) or "appearance" (as in function) is a separate issue, worthy of discussion, but not the bone of contention at this time.

The problem is with your assertion that Θεοῦ and δούλου in Phil. 2:6-8 are epexegetical genitives . This simply cannot [reasonably speaking] be the case. Perhaps you should re-visit the definition of epexegetical genitive.

Whether μορφῇ in Phil. 2:6-8 means "the nature" (as in ontology) or "appearance" (as in function) is a separate issue, worthy of discussion, but not the bone of contention at this time.

Best regards,

Hello, JM.

I realize that you think it's a problem. You're the one who forced me to re-open this question in the first place. I'm more than aware of your opinion and its relative value.

Greetings and peace in the name of Jesus Christ who came from the only true God, the Father ...

In GGBB, p.95 Wallace describes how to test for an epexegetical genitive. :

"Every genitive of apposition, like most genitive uses, can be translated with of + the genitive noun. To test whether the genitive in question is a genitive of apposition, replace the word of with the paraphrase which is or that is, namely, or, if a personal noun, who is. If it does not make the same sense, a genitive of apposition is unlikely; if it does make the same sense, a genitive of apposition is likely."

So let's do that for both "form of God" (μορφῇ Θεοῦ ) and "form of a servant" (μορφὴν δούλου ).

>> "Form" that is "God".....>> Not only do the two nouns not make the same sense, but the entire formula is senseless.

>> "Form" that is "a servant"....>> Again, no sense.

Also you are effectively arguing that "form" (μορφῇ) means the same thing as "God" (Θεοῦ) and "a servant" (δούλου) ! So to say μορφῇ Θεοῦ and μορφὴν δούλου in Phil. 2:6-8 are both epexegetical genitives is IMHO beyond ridiculous.

I mean no personal offense JaiHare, but I very strongly feel that you're mistaken . Would you please reconsider ? Let's be able to disagree without being disagreeable.

Isaac Newton wrote:Hi Jaihare,<snip>I mean no personal offense JaiHare, but I very strongly feel that you're mistaken . Would you please reconsider ? Let's be able to disagree without being disagreeable.

I will say that I'm glad you at least attempt to maintain decorum on this forum. What is the difference between here and CF?

"Every genitive of apposition, like most genitive uses, can be translated with of + the genitive noun. To test whether the genitive in question is a genitive of apposition, replace the word of with the paraphrase which is or that is, namely, or, if a personal noun, who is. If it does not make the same sense, a genitive of apposition is unlikely; if it does make the same sense, a genitive of apposition is likely."

Notice the use of the word "likely."

Isaac Newton wrote:So let's do that for both "form of God" (μορφῇ Θεοῦ ) and "form of a servant" (μορφὴν δούλου ).

>> "Form" that is "God".....>> Not only do the two nouns not make the same sense, but the entire formula is senseless.

>> "Form" that is "a servant"....>> Again, no sense.

Also you are effectively arguing that "form" (μορφῇ) means the same thing as "God" (Θεοῦ) and "a servant" (δούλου) ! So to say μορφῇ Θεοῦ and μορφὴν δούλου in Phil. 2:6-8 are both epexegetical genitives is IMHO beyond ridiculous.

Just as "temple" is not a synonym of "body" and "sign" is not a synonym of "circumcision," we have to be a little less literal than you're suggesting here.

If you removed "of his body" from the verse talking about Jesus destroying the temple, you would never come to the conclusion that he was talking about his body - just as the Jewish leaders are portrayed as not understanding him correctly when he made the statement without the clarification.

We need to understand that "his body" was the literal reality, while "temple" was a metaphor - which was clarified and explained by the use of the genitive. Similarly, "circumcision" was the thing that really happened, but Abraham was (as we are) supposed to understand it as a "sign" by metaphor.

In this case, we have a metaphor of being one form and taking on another, the idea of transformation. What was the reality of the first form? Deity (θεός). What was the reality of the second? Servant (δοῦλος). The genitives explain what the form (a metaphorical use of the term) was really meant to refer to.

In my opinion, this is a good example of the epexegetical genitive.

Can you explain why it would not be one? Or, is it just because it would conflict with your theological opinions?

Both "temple" and "sign" have applicative precedents for "body" and "circumcision" respectively in the bible , but not "form", as in , "God." Also, as I pointed out earlier, it seems unreasonable that the head noun "form" is defined in two different ways in two epexegetical genitive constructions within the same context , "God" and then as "a servant." Do you have any other example from the bible of such a phenomenon ?

I hope others can participate and contribute to this discussion. You and I seem to be at an impasse here. I hope there are no hard feelings , we can certainly agree to disagree respectfully.

Markos wrote:Jesus is like Yahweh in that He is also a god and he co-created the universe. He's not the same as Yahweh. Jesus was like a slave the way Paul was like a slave.

Is this your personal opinion or what you assert was the opinion of early Christians? I don't have a problem imagining that early Christians were something other than strict monotheists (given my opinions about the composition of the text of the NT - which I have not shared with you), but it is at least claimed by Christians that they are monotheists and worship the God of Israel only. The idea that Jesus is "another god" is not kosher according to the majority of Christians.

Isaac Newton wrote:I hope others can participate and contribute to this discussion. You and I seem to be at an impasse here. I hope there are no hard feelings , we can certainly agree to disagree respectfully.

As Roger says on Rent: "You can't quietly wipe out an entire city then watch 'It's a Wonderful Life' on TV." You've been harsh and unreasonable to me so many times that I'm shocked that you could really say "no hard feelings" to me. There has never been and will never be respect between us. We're way past that. It's interesting, however, that your personality on this specific forum seems to be tempered with something that doesn't appear on CARM. Why can't you even attempt decency there?

I'm really sorry if I've hurt your feelings in the past, whatever it was, it was not purposefully done. Please accept my apologies. Also, I will say this as gently as I can, -- but IMHO you have been far more "harsh" with me than I've been with you. But I hold no ill feeling towards you, and am completely at peace with you . Please have the same attitude towards me. I will continue to speak truthfully, firmly and if necessary, yes, even a little "harshly" .

I'm really sorry if I've hurt your feelings in the past, whatever it was, it was not purposefully done. Please accept my apologies. Also, I will say this as gently as I can, -- but IMHO you have been far more "harsh" with me than I've been with you. But I hold no ill feeling towards you, and am completely at peace with you . Please have the same attitude towards me. I will continue to speak truthfully, firmly and if necessary, yes, even a little "harshly" .

So, let me be clear with your peaceful intentions... it is NEVER either necessary or acceptable for you to be "harsh" in your approach to me. You've been nothing but the epitome of an internet troll since I've had dealings with you online. If you're truly committed to letting bygones be bygones, then it must apply to both forums - and you must demonstrate a change in how you address people. It is a Christian maxim that you must love your enemies. I reject that maxim and believe in holding those who treat you badly in contempt and forgiving no one who isn't sincere.

Please do not get upset if I counsel you to practice what you preach. In this regard, I suggest that you meditate upon the verse in your signature portion, which summarizes all of the law. Part of loving your neighbour is in not slandering them.

Please do not get upset if I counsel you to practice what you preach. In this regard, I suggest that you meditate upon the verse in your signature portion, which summarizes all of the law. Part of loving your neighbour is in not slandering them.

καὶ ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν· ἐγώ εἰμι κύριος.

Leviticus 19:18b

Be at peace,

If someone is a scoundrel and you call them a scoundrel, it is not slander. I call it like I experience it. Slander is laying blame at the foot of an innocent person. You are not innocent.

But who are you to judge another ? Shall we not leave all judgment to God ? None of us is "innocent." Please do not be self-righteous.

I am quite disappointed that you no longer subscribe to what is declared in your signature . Would you please [therefore] remove Leviticus 19:18b from your signature portion. I'm not asking you to do this out of anger or spite, but out of respect for that verse.

I shall be a little "firm" and warn you (simply because I care for you) that the following is diametrically in conflict with the word of God: " It is a Christian maxim that you must love your enemies.I reject that maxim and believe in holding those who treat you badly in contempt and forgiving no one who isn't sincere." It is something Nietzsch, Crowley and Lavey would say.

Would you please reconsider ? If you do what is right, will God not accept you ?

Isaac Newton wrote:But who are you to judge another ? Shall we not leave all judgment to God ? None of us is "innocent." Please do not be self-righteous.

I cannot leave judgment to God. That would, in my mind, mean leaving judgment to no one, since I do not believe that any gods exist.

Isaac Newton wrote:I am quite disappointed that you no longer subscribe to what is declared in your signature . Would you please [therefore] remove Leviticus 19:18b from your signature portion. I'm not asking you to do this out of anger or spite, but out of respect for that verse.

I do indeed love my neighbor as myself and have the greatest respect for mankind. I am a humanist in every respect, believing in the essential greatness of being a human being. However, I do not believe that evil people deserve respect, and I refuse to respect those who do not show respect to wicked people. You have, in my experience of your posts over the past couple of years, demonstrated nothing but wickedness in your approach to other people on forums - hence my repulsion at your very presence on a forum. If you change your ways, will you not receive respect and acceptance? Of course you would. But I will not show any respect to a reprehensible Internet character.

Isaac Newton wrote:I shall be a little "firm" and warn you (simply because I care for you) that the following is diametrically in conflict with the word of God: " It is a Christian maxim that you must love your enemies.I reject that maxim and believe in holding those who treat you badly in contempt and forgiving no one who isn't sincere." It is something Nietzsch, Crowley and Lavey would say.

Again, you don't quite understand that whatever is "diametrically opposed to" the Bible doesn't matter to me. I find the basis of my morality outside of the Bible and even find the Bible an awful example if we were really looking for a place to put our trust and to develop a rational argument for moral behavior.

Isaac Newton wrote:Would you please reconsider ? If you do what is right, will God not accept you?

In the Bible, God accepts people who do not do what is right. For example, Josiah - who murdered an untold number of people - was considered righteous. I don't accept that.

I'm saddned to say this, but IMHO you have taken upon yourself the role of my Accuser. Please change your attitude. I will pray for you in this regard, and continue to hope only for the best for you. I truly have no grudge, "hatred" or ill will towards you. I do suspect however that you're hurting , are terribly conflicted, and seek a semblance of peace. But I'll be blunt, without God, that's hard, if not impossible. Please acknowledge his existence, fear him and repent, if you seek true rest.

I will only say that I have known Markos online, and his religious opinions - as different as they are from my own - have never been an issue. I do not take issue with people's personal opinions or what they believe. You are one of a very few list of online personalities that I cannot tolerate - because of how you have treated people so frequently on CARM. You make it routine to attack people and denigrate them. If you don't think that's the case, it only shows how little are aware of your own behavior, and that's just sad.

Isaac Newton wrote:Jason,You have made some serious accusations. I humbly and gently ask again-- would you please support your accusations.

Anyone who cares to visit the Biblical Languages forum on CARM will see how you have related to nearly every poster there. I'm not alone in my opinion or what I have experienced as the result of your abusive nature.

Again, could you please provide an example ? -- show us my most "abusive" post at Carm. I'm calling your bluff, with some sadness.

Next post, I will print out some of your "abusive" posts for all to see. You leave me little choice. I'm giving you fair warning.

And now we come to the entire point of your 'request' for an example. You keep links to posts that you bring up later. I do not. I would have to search the forum to find examples, and the juiciest were reported and removed from the forum - which often resulted in your being suspended from the forum.

Have I said that I have nothing but hate for you? Yes. Have I stated that you're a troll and add nothing of worth to the forum? Yes. Would I stand by every foul word that I've sent your way in the heat of my anger - even now in my coolness of temper? Yes. You are certainly the least worthwhile person I've ever had the displeasure of running into online. That doesn't change, no matter what forum you end up following me to.

If you cannot defend your accusations then you must not accuse . There are infact no "juicy" posts of mine which have been [conveniently] "removed" by the moderators. Why would they remove my "abusive" posts and leave yours intact ? You're not speaking truthfully. And you have been "banned" many times at Carm. , by your own admission.

You have forced my hand, dear friend . I do the following with a heavy heart. Here are some examples of the abuse which you have heaped on the relatively powerless minorities at Carm., that is, upon Unitarians (like myself) , on the JWs and on others, while at the same time currying favour with the powers that be there, namely the Trinitarian majority. I've not furnished the worse ....

Jameson;

"Yes, I would say that over the past year or so that we've been interacting here, I've developed a pretty strong sense of hate for you. That would probably be accurate enough. The thinking presented in your posts turns my stomach. It's absolutely repulsive, and I'm sad to think that a person exists in the real world whose thinking is actually warped to this level."

---Jameson,

"The Jehovah's Witnesses are ignorant fools. All of their scholarship is defunct and twisted. Opposing stupidity is not grinding an ax, although I do grind my teeth when I think that you actually present their garbage as if they had some sense. "

---Jameson,

"Like a little girl that points her finger in her brother's face, moving it around erratically and saying, "I'm not touching you!" You push and ***** and poke until someone shouts at you, then you decry their lack of character. You're a wicked troll of the worst kind. People like you should be banned from every serious forum. You should probably be medicated and quarantined, in fact.

Following are the most "abusive" things I've said at Carm, for which the moderators saw fit to furnish me with a three day banning :

"Well, shouldn't you be praising the GODS ? " violation rule 22

"If this doesn't do it, then frankly I'm at a loss -- how to get through to Civic... Any suggestions?" Violation rule 12

"You above all have taught me what Jesus' saying at Matthew 7:6 entails, "Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces..." This infraction is worth 10 point(s) , --- no reason given

"Well, you have said Jesus is God. So you're contradicting yourself when you say "God was not formed in the womb." No reason given

"I've made a new rule: anyone wishing a discussion with me must know the meaning of the word synecdoche." "Insulted a member"

"Why are your eyes so blinded to the truth of what John is saying ? " Reason: Rule 22: Divisive/Inflammatory

"You can say that again." Reason: Rule 12

"The individuals at Carm. making this [absurd] claim about 2 John 1:7 have a tendency to manufacture their own grammar. Yet they couldn't parse a Greek verb if their life depended upon it." Rule 22: Divisive/Inflammatory

"Again, Trinitarian orthodoxy asserts that Jesus is not a human person , but John 1:14 asserts that he sure is.JM," VIOLATION RULE 22

"The following is taken from Divine Truth or Human Tradition, Authorhouse, 2007, Patrick Navas, p. 309-311"[I was banned for quoting the above non-Trinitarian author]

General Rule violations: Check your post for possible violation of rule #29, or Links, #17, or All caps, or #23, English only,

As the readers can see, I've had the book thrown at me by the moderators, and on top of that I've been called all kinds of abusive names by angry posters. I hope that I've lived up to the calling of my master , who asked his followers to forgive those who persecute, and to love them.

If you cannot defend your accusations then you must not accuse . There are infact no "juicy" posts of mine which have been [conveniently] "removed" by the moderators. Why would they remove my "abusive" posts and leave yours intact ? You're not speaking truthfully. And you have been "banned" many times at Carm. , by your own admission.

You have forced my hand, dear friend . I do the following with a heavy heart. Here are some examples of the abuse which you have heaped on the relatively powerless minorities at Carm., that is, upon Unitarians (like myself) , on the JWs and on others, while at the same time currying favour with the powers that be there, namely the Trinitarian majority. I've not furnished the worse ....

Jameson;

"Yes, I would say that over the past year or so that we've been interacting here, I've developed a pretty strong sense of hate for you. That would probably be accurate enough. The thinking presented in your posts turns my stomach. It's absolutely repulsive, and I'm sad to think that a person exists in the real world whose thinking is actually warped to this level."

---Jameson,

"The Jehovah's Witnesses are ignorant fools. All of their scholarship is defunct and twisted. Opposing stupidity is not grinding an ax, although I do grind my teeth when I think that you actually present their garbage as if they had some sense. "

---Jameson,

"Like a little girl that points her finger in her brother's face, moving it around erratically and saying, "I'm not touching you!" You push and ***** and poke until someone shouts at you, then you decry their lack of character. You're a wicked troll of the worst kind. People like you should be banned from every serious forum. You should probably be medicated and quarantined, in fact.

I will stress again that I've done this with a heavy heart. .I don't bear a grudge against you, nor do I hate you . I will continue to pray for you.

Be at peace,

First, Timberdoodle is not "one of my supporters." We generally agree against you, but that does not necessarily make us ideological allies.

Second, if you're accusing me, then accuse me and leave off what other people said to you. It is irrelevant to your case.

Third, as I said to you before, if I were allowed to use harsher language to express just what I think of your foolishness and rash chutzpah on these forums, I would. You have the worst and most venomous snake-like character that I have ever seen of anyone online, and I've participated in many different forums. If I said it in plain language, I would make some people blush. I cannot get around calling it like it is. If I had the power, I would delete every nick that you create on every forum and ban you from the Internet. There are enough lies out there, and you do nothing but continue to the build-up of false lying crap that is already polluting the web streams.

Please come to the realization that you "hate" me for no reason other than for my thinking . At Carm. you agreed with Timberdoodle when he called me the following names, and there you encouraged others to think of me in these terms:

Would you still call me the above names, and encourage others to do so, or have you repented of this attitude since ?

Third, as I said to you before, if I were allowed to use harsher language to express just what I think of your foolishness and rash chutzpah on these forums, I would..

Jameson, from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good man speaks holy, wholesome, kind, and forgiving words, words which uplift. The not good man, from the abundance of his heart, slanders, curses, hates, despises and murders others. My friend (I still call you a friend), do you not know that the bad things which come out of your mouth hurt you far more than they will ever hurt me ? Stop hating me for no apparent reason at all, and you will be at a better place than you are at right now. For your own good.

You have the worst and most venomous snake-like character that I have ever seen of anyone online, and I've participated in many different forums. If I said it in plain language, I would make some people blush. I cannot get around calling it like it is. If I had the power, I would delete every nick that you create on every forum and ban you from the Internet. There are enough lies out there, and you do nothing but continue to the build-up of false lying crap that is already polluting the web streams

Could you please give a single example of my "lies" ? If I see that there is any merit in your accusations, I will repent.

Isaac Newton wrote:Please come to the realization that you "hate" me for no reason other than for my thinking .

You might like to believe that, but it isn't the case. There are others on CARM who are also Unitarians and hold the same opinions as you in many cases. However, they are not abusive of other posters. You consistently bully and badger, beat people over the head, etc. This question over Phil. 2:6-7 is itself an example of this. You have again and again brought this passage up as a weapon against me, trying to tell others on the forum that I'm an ignoramus and cannot understand the Bible because I read these phrases as epexegetical genitives. You did the same thing with your supposed example of constructio ad sensum in John 1 about τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν and the use of the masculine in the following verse. You did the same thing with so many verses. You get an opinion fixed in your head, and then you browbeat anyone who disagrees with your opinion.

What aroused my strong emotional reactions to your posts is the consistency in your attacks on other posters. You are not content to let people have their own opinions, but you try to make them into fools if they don't accept either your thinking or your conclusions. It's completely unacceptable, and as I have stated many times, you are probably the worst case of megalomania that I've run into online.

jaihare wrote:You might like to believe that, but it isn't the case. There are others on CARM who are also Unitarians and hold the same opinions as you in many cases. However, they are not abusive of other posters. .

I'm simply repeating what you said though. The following (in quotes) are your words, pay careful attention to underlined:

"Yes, I would say that over the past year or so that we've been interacting here, I've developed a pretty strong sense of hate for you. That would probably be accurate enough. The thinking presented in your posts turns my stomach. It's absolutely repulsive, and I'm sad to think that a person exists in the real world whose thinking is actually warped to this level."

Jason, the truth is that no Unitarian at Carm. is abusive.. Rather you're abusive to virtually all of the non-Trinitarian Unitarian/JW Christians there , but in your self-righteousness you do not see this.

You consistentlybully and badger, beat people over the head, etc. This question over Phil. 2:6-7 is itself an example of this. You have again and again brought this passage up as a weapon against me, trying to tell others on the forum that I'm an ignoramus and cannot understand the Bible because I read these phrases as epexegetical genitives. You did the same thing with your supposed example of constructio ad sensum in John 1 about τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν and the use of the masculine in the following verse. You did the same thing with so many verses. You get an opinion fixed in your head, and then you browbeat anyone who disagrees with your opinion.

What aroused my strong emotional reactions to your posts is the consistency in your attacks on other posters. You are not content to let people have their own opinions, but you try to make them into fools if they don't accept either your thinking or your conclusions. It's completely unacceptable, and as I have stated many times, you are probably the worst case of megalomania that I've run into online

Again, could you please give an example from one of my posts at Carm. of any of above (in bold) . Infact, I'm sad to say that you do all of the above (in bold) and then [try to] turn the tables on others. I'm grieved that you even slander God -- calling into question his integrity and character, teaching that God is unjust, wicked and questioning his very existence, while at the same time praising the philosophy of Nietzsch. I expect to be abused by you, I just want you to understand that it is not good for your soul to do so. I shall continue to pray for you in this regard.